Um, there was and remains very little the US can do unilaterally against NK. Wolfpack was angry last time because we weren't able to go to war against yet another country, which came as a huge bummer to General Wolfpack of the 101st Keyboard Commandos. Not to mention the fact that South Korea didn't appeal to us to respond militarily. Oddly, Wolfpack seemed to have failed to obtain the freshest GOP talking points, or else he would have known such a position wasn't even favored in the party he takes his marching orders from.

Further, what Wolfpack, in his infinite wisdom, doesn't seem to understand is that any deployment of force against NK risks retaliation, from the world's fourth biggest military, against one of the largest cities in the world.

Whatever response that will come will need to bring enormous pressure to bear on China, as they are the primary enablers of the NK regime.

The risk of retaliation doesn't mean we should do nothing, it's just one factor that needs to be considered in how we react.

That said, what we don't need is a knee-jerk reaction without any thought about the longer term effects.

If / when we react, I'd hope that our leaders have carefully thought out what some of the possible scenarios could be and what that would mean for our involvement. I hope that will be the case, but I'm not confident of it.

No one is advocating inaction. If you have some ideas as to what the United States can do in terms of force projection in response to this act, lets hear them.

Fact is, we're not going to respond militarily unless South Korea makes the appeal. They didn't last time; whether or not they do this time remains to be seen. It's interesting that you say the risk of retaliation doesn't mean we should do nothing. I wonder if the fact that the South Koreans will disproportionately bear the brunt of any response bears on the calculus at all?

No one is advocating inaction. If you have some ideas as to what the United States can do in terms of force projection in response to this act, lets hear them.

Fact is, we're not going to respond militarily unless South Korea makes the appeal. They didn't last time; whether or not they do this time remains to be seen. It's interesting that you say the risk of retaliation doesn't mean we should do nothing. I wonder if the fact that the South Koreans will disproportionately bear the brunt of any response bears on the calculus at all?

Click to expand...

re. the bolded question: Of course it does, or should.

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying, which is simply that the possibility of retaliation is one factor to consider, not something that automatically means there should be no retaliation.

(I have no idea right now what we can or should do. I don't know what South Korea wants, and I'm not going to pretend to have the information or knowledge that would be necessary to actually evaluate the situation.)

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying, which is simply that the possibility of retaliation is one factor to consider, not something that automatically means there should be no retaliation.

(I have no idea right now what we can or should do. I don't know what South Korea wants, and I'm not going to pretend to have the information or knowledge that would be necessary to actually evaluate the situation.)

I have no idea right now what we can or should do. I don't know what South Korea wants, and I'm not going to pretend to have the information or knowledge that would be necessary to actually evaluate the situation.)

The ball is almost entirely in the hands of the North Koreans in terms of how this plays out. If they escalate, say by lobbing bombs in Seoul or other cities of the South, they would have to respond, escalating the crisis. If the North talks bluster but doesn't do anything else, it could stay as it is. The South did respond last time by cutting off all humanitarian aid to the North but who knows what goes on in the hermit kingdom, especially at a time of transition in leadership????

That link fails to mention that South Korea was firing test shells right near the border. The north is by no means an innocent party ... but it takes 2 to tango. Was there a need to fire test shells near the disputed border area?

we are brainwashed into believing the north is evil and the south are the good guys. Well it does seem the north's leaders are a bit crazy and cruel to their people but if they are not provoked I think they have a lot of bark and little bite.

That link fails to mention that South Korea was firing test shells right near the border. The north is by no means an innocent party ... but it takes 2 to tango. Was there a need to fire test shells near the disputed border area?

we are brainwashed into believing the north is evil and the south are the good guys. Well it does seem the north's leaders are a bit crazy and cruel to their people but if they are not provoked I think they have a lot of bark and little bite.

Click to expand...

I am always skeptical of any of these stories, re: how bad North Korea is and how good the south is.. we will never get the real story from the sanitized press that wants us to believe what they want us to believe.

No matter this is not our fight, let them figure it out.. we are as a country burnt out from war and completely desensitized to violence.

North Korea could roll their tanks up over the border into South Korea and start executing civilians while sending a nuke into Seoul and this country would do absolutely nothing to help out their allies. This country's as$holes pucker up every time North Korea bows up. We're so afraid of them that it's not even funny.

I am always skeptical of any of these stories, re: how bad North Korea is and how good the south is.. we will never get the real story from the sanitized press that wants us to believe what they want us to believe.

.

Click to expand...

Your right the right wing media is covering up all the stories of desperate South Koreans fleeing the capitalist hellhole of the South for the workers paradise in the north.

I really don't see the US acting aggressively unless the South Koreans want. For us to provoke an attack on South Korea by an insane regime would be absolutely awful. If the South Koreans feel that a war is the only choice, I think we would have no choice but to back them.

That link fails to mention that South Korea was firing test shells right near the border. The north is by no means an innocent party ... but it takes 2 to tango. Was there a need to fire test shells near the disputed border area?

we are brainwashed into believing the north is evil and the south are the good guys. Well it does seem the north's leaders are a bit crazy and cruel to their people but if they are not provoked I think they have a lot of bark and little bite.

Click to expand...

They weren't firing in the direction of NK. I believe that based on NK's past behavior.

That link fails to mention that South Korea was firing test shells right near the border. The north is by no means an innocent party ... but it takes 2 to tango. Was there a need to fire test shells near the disputed border area?

Click to expand...

It hints at CIA involvement. Remember the provocations with Iranian sailors in the ocean?

It seems that no matter who is in office, there will be some sort of conflict (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan with Bush, and China-Japan and the Koreas for Obama) that will coincidentally be a windfall for the military complex.